Introduction of HIBC Members, State Historic Preservation
Division Staff and the Deputy Attorney General

Young says the HIBC was on a site visit this morning, and
thanks Mr. Jim Greenwell and his crew for taking the HIBC out
there.

Young says at the last HIBC meeting, the HIBC determined
certain policies for these meetings- one thing is the sign in
sheet for testimony. As the HIBC Chair, Young has been tasked with
implementing time limits for testimony as Young sees fit. It will
really depend on how long these meetings go. The purpose of these
policies is to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to speak;
not to limit people. Young guarantees that if you feel you have
more to say after the first round of testimony, you will be given
the opportunity to come back again. We will take people in the
order they sign up.

V. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 18, 2005 HIBC MEETING MINUTES

A motion is made to approve the August 18, 2005 HIBC meeting
minutes as submitted

(Hoover/Saffrey)

Vote: All in Favor

VI. BUSINESS

A. BURIAL TREATMENT PLAN FOR AN AREA IN THE AHUPUA'A OF
HONOKOHAU I (NUI) AND II (IKI), KONA DISTIRCT, ISLAND OF
HAWAI'I

[TMK (3) 7-4-08:13, (3) 7-4-08:30 AND (3)
7-4-08:74]

Information/Determination/Recommendation: Presentation by West
Hawai'i Business Park, LLC. Council determination to preserve in
place or relocate previously identified burials. Council
recommendations to the Department on the short and long term
preservation measures detailed in the Burial Treatment Plan.
Recognition of cultural and/or lineal descendants.

Greenwell says he is the President of West Hawai'i Business
Park, LLC which is a subsidiary of Lanihau Properties. Tuggle,
Harp and Orr have worked very closely with him to develop the
burial treatment plan that is before the Council today.

Greenwell has also requested that Bruce McClure, the Chief
Engineer with the County of Hawai'i be here today. Greenwell
thanks McClure for coming. The civil engineer for the project,
Barry Muronaka is also here today. McClure and Muronaka are here
to answer any questions regarding the Kamanu Street
connection.

Greenwell thanks the descendants who Greenwell Tuggle and Orr
have gotten to know- Greenwell feels he has really learned a lot
from the descendants; it has been a good process that Greenwell
feels everyone has benefited from.

Greenwell's great-grandfather, Henry Nicholas Greenwell
acquired title to this land in the 1880's and became the
caretaker. Greenwell's grandfather, Frank succeeded him. In the
1960's a quarry license agreement allowed JN Tanaka to do some
surface quarrying on the property under a conservation district
use permit.

The family was slow to move, as you look mauka form the
National Park, the one green strip of land in Honokohau is this
property. In the 1990's the family realized it was time to do
something- the County did their Kailua to Keahole regional plan;
infrastructure was being planned and growth was inevitable. The
first thing they (Greenwell) did was the archaeological inventory
survey of almost 900 acres from Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway almost to
Palani Road. It took almost 9 years to get the inventory survey
approved.

The first consultant Greenwell retained was Kepa Maly. Maly
helped with the cultural history of the land and helped
Greenwell's generation reconnect to families and people who
Greenwell's parents and grandparent knew. These people formed the
initial list of contacts which started in 2000; that is when
Greenwell first met Harp. Since then, Greenwell retained Tuggle's
firm, IARII to do some of the mitigation planning. Greenwell felt
it would be good to change archaeologists to have a new set of
eyes look over the work. The first thing Greenwell asked for was a
review and validation of the previous archaeological work-
Greenwell wanted comfort with that. The next step was addressing
the specifics of mitigation planning.

Greenwell says they did go through a full environmental impact
statement because the property is in the conservation district and
the zoning of the land had to be changed to urban by the Land Use
Commission. The County zoning process was completed last year.

There were a series of meetings with the descendants they were
able to identify. There were three or four meetings as a group and
much more discussions individually. The process may not have been
perfect, but Greenwell feels they have tried to find balance in
what they are trying to do. Balancing not only the concerns that
are coming form the descendants, but in this case Greenwell has to
build a road, so he has had to try and consider what kinds of
things the County is looking for. Even within the cultural issues,
there has been some give and take that Greenwell had the
opportunity to help make happen in a way he felt he could.

Greenwell does feel very good about the plan that is before the
HIBC for consideration. It has been a good process.

Tuggle says there are five burial caves within the project area
Greenwell is speaking of. Each cave has between 1 to approximately
10 individuals. The caves vary in topography depending on their
location in the project area. These caves were identified in an
archaeological inventory survey that was conducted about 10 years
ago. Tuggle came into this 3 or 4 years ago to look at the overall
archaeology on the landscape, including the burial sites and
development of the burial treatment plan.

One thing that was requested very early on by community groups-
'ohana and descendants was to verify the quality of the previous
inventory work- in other words to remap the caves and make sure
they were where they were supposed to be under the ground, and
make sure all the burials had been identified and located
properly. Tuggle did not do this work himself, but his field crew
under the direction of Mike Carson did that work. Isaaac Harp was
also involved with the remapping.

The remapping only involved four of the five caves. As
discussed at the site visit, one of the caves involves a
constructed entrance which is fairly fragile and poses a safety
concern. It was decided that remapping of this cave was not
appropriate at this time.

Based on the remapping and discussions with 'ohana, kupuna and
descendants they have proposed several aspects of burial
treatment. The first and most obvious one is a proposal to
preserve all burials in place. Each one of the burial sites is a
cave, and thus, the difficulties with dealing with caves arise.
They have proposed to identify a specific preservation area which
is defined by the entrance to the cave, the access to the burial
chamber, and the burial chamber itself and proposes a boundary for
that area.

That boundary is identified in the maps in the plan as "the
burial preservation buffer zone". The surface of that area is to
be left undisturbed and defined by some sort of boundary marker;
the plan proposes a stone wall. Beyond this boundary are
additional buffers and constraints; a five foot landscaped area,
and a 30 foot building set back, and a temporary construction
buffer.

There are some exceptions. Two exceptions were discussed at the
site visit. The two caves identified as 18116 and 18117 are close
to each other. Greenwell has suggested enlarging the preservation
area around these caves into a cultural preservation area which
would be close to four acres.

Another exception is the proposal to cross one cave with a
County connector road (Kamanu Street).

There is also site 18134, which we saw on the site visit this
morning. It is a very large cave with two passages and at least 10
individuals buried within. It appears there was a ki'i removed
from this cave, and we are working to have that returned. The cave
has a massive constructed entrance.

There are some additional possibilities on how to protect this
cave that are not proposed in the plan before the HIBC. They have
been waiting to hear back from the 'ohana, kupuna, descendants and
HIBC on guidance on how to deal with this special place. They are
looking at those possibilities.

Once it is determined of where these boundaries should be,
there is a process they are proposing on how to physically mark in
the field and protected when development of this land begins so
there is no question of protection for preservation area. The
preservation areas are indicated in the plan and there are
measures to make sure those preservation actions are enforced. One
of which is having Isaac Harp as the cultural monitor. He or other
monitors will make sure that the agreed upon preserved areas are
protected by any potential physical damage, bulldozing etc.

Isaac Harp (Harp) says he considers himself a lineal descendant
of the area although the State does not. About a month ago, he
signed an agreement to be the cultural monitor. He has been
meeting with Greenwell and the other descendants since 2000. It
has been a long process, and there have been many site visits.
Descendants keep being added to the list which Harp appreciates
being involved with.

The descendants who have been involved in discussions so far
support what is proposed here. There have been some discussions
recently on what is going to happen to the cave entrances- some
proposals have been permanently sealing them or putting bars over
the entrance; those discussions are continuing.

As far as the Kamanu Street connection, the descendants support
the idea with the exception of one who has some questions on the
concrete reinforcement. Harp understands that the proposed
alternatives have been rejected by the County, and if the road has
to cross the cave, there needs to be some kind of concrete
reinforcement to protect the cave from collapse. Harp hopes the
County will not reject the proposal to reinforce the cave, and
instead collapse it to reduce their potential for liability.

Young asks Harp the proposed crossing on page 23 of the plan is
something the County is proposing as acceptable for meeting County
requirements.

Harp says there are a couple of alternatives on page 26 of the
plan. The alternative routes are green and purple. It is Harps
understanding the County has rejected those alternatives. That is
why the cave needs to be reinforced to avoid collapsing the
cave.

Ku Kahakalau (Kahakalau) says when we have a cave we looked at
the entire feature as the burial feature. In every single case
here the pictures and drawings limit the burial feature to a
certain area and extensive areas that are still part of the cave
complex are excluded. Kahakalau does not know if this is arbitrary
or if it is so many feet away. Kahakalau cannot see the schematics
of it.

Site 18088 is a huge lava tube, and maybe a fourth of it is
designated as the burial chamber and also site 18134. Kahakalau
has never seen this before; the HIBC has always looked at the
whole cave as being the site.

Tuggle says the criteria used were identifying an explicit area
of access, the entrance to the cave, the burial location and
access to the burial within the cave; the location of the remains
in a specific chamber. That area is proposed to be entirely
protected on the surface with additional areas of constraints and
preservation.

For Site 18134 the boundary that was drawn there is based on
existing information- the cave was not remapped. There were some
constrictions that were impassible, but the red line on the map
shows the limits of cultural material within the cave. The entire
cave has been placed within a preservation boundary. Figure G-3 in
the plan shows that proposal.

Kahakalau says she is also concerned about Site 18116; Figure
D-2.

Tuggle says this cave is going to be in a much larger
preservation area. This entire cave along with all of Site 18116
will be preserved; the only question is Kamanu Street. The cave
will be preserved, but the proposal is to have the road cross over
it on the surface.

Once the boundaries for Sites 18116 and 18117 are defined and
in addition to Site 18134 being preserved in it's entirety you
will see that the effective area of preservation is beyond the
original defined boundary.

Leningrad Elarionoff (Elarionoff) says this is similar to the
case in Puna that was presented at the August HIBC where there is
a tube that crossed several properties. Elarionoff also knows of a
burial cave in Wai'ohinu that extends for three miles the burials
are only in one part of the cave. If we start getting into a
situation where the whole tube has to be preserved, that is a lot
of area- it is a precedent. We need to be careful and look where
the burials and what the intention was.

Kahakalau says we also have to be spiritual. If you look at a
church, the entire church is looked at as a sacred place- it is an
analogy for the western framework or any other religion. You have
areas that would be considered more sacred; it is where the mana
is concentrated. There are areas in the church where you can't go.
You could be in the front area of a church, but you still have to
act like you are in a church.

Previous Councils up to now have treated the whole cave as the
site.

Pele Hanoa (Hanoa) says the whole area needs to be preserved;
no tearing off the front end or back end.

Young says we are trying to overlay someone else's map over the
intention of our ancestors. There was no dispute over ownership or
TMK's when they did the burials. The Council has been very
consistent in viewing the entire cave is the burial. That has held
throughout many decisions. There have been cases where the ana go
from property to property. There is a legal constraint where the
adjacent landowner needs to adhere to the plan. We had a case like
that on Ali'i Drive. The Council encouraged the developers to work
it out, and they did. In this case, we are on one property. This
is something the Council has made decisions on before, and it set
a good precedent.

Young feels this is a good plan, with the exception of the
road, these are lines on paper though and are not hard and fast in
the ground yet, but that is what we are trying to accomplish, and
that is where we are trying to get to.

Greenwell says they know this was a subject we were going to
talk about a lot. It is probably the thing they talked with the
descendants most about. Greenwell has been guided significantly by
what those who have been a part of those discussions have been
comfortable with. The most mauka cave 18134 has some issues with
joint ownership and the special nature of that site.

For the other sites down below, the lines represent the
radiating levels of protection- we really got into during
discussions with the descendants and were heavily guided by that
input. They were down on the ground drawing on the maps to see
what we could do. They were trying to respect that concept. They
looked at each of these sites as being somewhat unique for 18116
and 18117 with the roads; they realized they can take better care
of them with the four acre preservation area.

They tried to stay to a protocol- Greenwell knows they can do
better on 18134 in terms of being more specific because of the
special nature of the site.

Kahakalau says she just had a question. It was not clear,
sometimes "burial chamber" is used and sometimes "burial chambers"
is used; so her question was who is defining those, and needed
clarification.

In general the buffer width going outwards is a really positive
thing. The HIBC is always concerned about heavy machinery coming
in, so the construction buffers are good too. Kahakalau likes the
detail on page 12 of the plan which specifies how close the heavy
machinery can get, and she hopes that the descendants or other
HIBC members with experience in this can share if they think those
buffers are enough.

In terms of the 4 acre cultural preservation area, Kahakalau is
hearing that the plans are to do nothing there; leave it as it is.
Just having nothing there makes it cultural? Kahakalau is not sure
where all that is going.

Kahakalau feels that to do something with the area, there has
to be something there if it is going to perpetuate the culture.
There needs to be funding available to perpetuate those things.
Keep that in mind as discussions continue with the descendants.
Just giving someone some land and telling people do something with
the culture that land without having the means in general is hard.
This is a recommendation to the landowner: we appreciate giving
and designating land for cultural purposes, but keep in mind that
if revenue is being generated from this land, perhaps a percentage
can go to the people and the cultural preserve to really makes
this a place where people can do something because there is the
funding to do something with it.

Kahakalau says this is a suggestion she wanted to throw out
there, and really thanks Greenwell for thinking to put aside the
land, but for many unless there is money to do something with that
land, not a lot of cultural things can happen there.

Pele Hanoa says maybe because Greenwell is the developer, maybe
they can do something with it, and build a cultural center in that
area.

Greenwell says they are deferring a lot of this to the
descendants, but feels the tone of discussions up to this point
was that there was a value to leaving areas more undisturbed.
Offering a place where even native plants could be preserved and
seen in their natural context years from now next to perhaps a
trail corridor that told part of the story of how people who lived
in this land moved through the area, and what they saw and what it
was like. It is going to get to a point where it will be hard for
you can see where a pahoehoe and 'a'a flow come together and you
can still see and feel that. It will be rare.

Maybe things haven't been taken as far as they could be but
they saw value at this juncture to say they won't do anything
until the descendants are comfortable with it.

Isaac Harp (Harp) says the descendant group has not gotten into
discussions on any treatment of the cultural preservation area.
Their primary focus has been protecting the burials. There has
been talk of turning this cultural preserve area over to a
descendant land trust. The descendants who have been involved in
the discussions feel the area should be left natural, and remove
the alien plants and perhaps bring in some of the native dry land
plants that don't need much water. These discussions have not gone
into much detail. The focus for now has been getting as much
protection as possible for the burials.

Maria Orr (Orr) thinks the idea was to establish the 4 acres as
a protected area. No building what so ever will take place in
there.

Dutchie Saffrey (Saffrey) asks who will be removing the alien
plants from the cultural preserve.

Harp says the descendants will decide that, but discussions
have not reached that point. For now they are happy with having
the land set aside, and not have anything happen in the area.
Eventually, the discussions will focus on what is best for the
area, and for future generations.

Leningrad Elarionoff (Elarionoff) says he likes the idea of the
preservation plan. After being on the site visit, and seeing the
caves. Just by the entrances it is obvious that different classes
of people are buried there. If the brush is removed, these areas
will be even more exposed. Elarionoff likes the idea of careful
planning when it comes to preservation; see what is there, and
preserve it as is.

Harp says from his site visits to the area, he can see three
classes of people buried there: maka'ainana, and maybe some
konohiki. Of course the big cave is probably an ali'i; very
significant amount of work went into that site.

As much as possible, Harp would like to preserve the area in
its natural state

End Tape 1 Side A

Begin Side B

there are a lot of features around that area that you
can't see because of the brush.

Tuggle says all of the features Harp is speaking of are
protected within the preservation buffers for that particular
cave.

Jacqui Hoover (Hoover) asks Maryanne Maigret if there is a
difference between cultural preservation areas and historical
preservation areas- she has seen both terms used.

Maryanne Maigret (Maigret) says both terms refer to protected
areas. The interpretation of a given area depends on what is
unique about it. That is what she looks for when plans come in; it
is a case by case kind of thing.

Hoover asks Harp if there are no intentions to put up
interpretive signage? Or is the plan to just preserve what is
there historically in a correct way?

Harp agrees.

Saffrey asks if the buffers similar to Site 18088 that are
proposed for site 18134 acceptable to the descendants.

Harp says pretty much.

Safrrey asks if the descendants are all in agreement with
that.

Harp says in the beginning, there was a preference on
protecting the entire cave structure. Then the discussions went
into how far do we go if the caves extend for hundreds of feet or
miles? The descendants who were involved in these discussions
agreed that the protection should be for the burial chamber
itself. There is basically agreement from the descendants for what
is in the proposal the one exception is on how the entrances will
be treated; there has not been agreement on that.

Tuggle says following the discussions at the site visit and
here at the meeting, they will go back to meeting with the 'ohana
and descendants on how to treat that particular cave (18134).

Young says it may be appropriate at this point to have Bruce
McClure, Hawai'i County's Chief Engineer come forward because he
may have some information on the proposed alignments of the Kamanu
Street connection.

Greenwell suggests that Barry Muronaka come forward. He did the
original design.

Bruce McClure (McClure) introduces himself to the HIBC. He is
the Director of Hawai'i County's Department of Public Works.

Barry Muronaka (Muronaka) introduces himself to the HIBC. He is
with Akinaka and Associates, who are the consulting civil
engineers.

The intent is to connect Kamanu Street from both ends in the
straightest path possible while holding as close as possible to
the existing grade to avoid cutting into the ground or building
up. This saves money and there is less disturbance of the
ground.

The original proposal did not take into account having to avoid
the cave that is there. Once that issue came out, two alternatives
were identified and shown in purple and green in the plan. These
alternatives were developed to try and see if the cave could be
avoided.

The green alignment resulted in what is called an "s curve".
This is undesirable for National Highway standards; it is just not
safe. National standards say you can't have what is called an
intermediate tangent between two curves going in opposite
direction. You make a left and then a right. They want you to go
straight for awhile and then make the turn. With the green
alignment this is impossible to do.

The purple alignment resulted in a change in direction by
having to stop. Muronaka thinks the intent of Kamanu Street was to
try and keep people moving. In having to stop, you create more
traffic.

McClure says there has been a failure to provide Kona and other
areas with a road system that works well. The failure has been to
provide "connectivity." If you have a house there is a front and
back door, but in Kona they have created cul-de-sacs that all come
off of main roads. A lot of traffic on Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway is
because the only other road is the Mamalahoa Highway up top.

The first connector the County did was in the Ka'iminani- Kona
Wonderview subdivision. Normally the County would wait for the
private sector to build the road, but to get this connectivity
going the County is condemning the land and will build the road at
the County's expense. One is in now and they are working on three
others.

It does not have to be a grid; it just has to be connected.
There is a need for more roads parallel to Ka'ahumanu, and more
mauka-makai roads. Kamanu Street will not be a 55 mph road to
replace Ka'ahumanu- it is a road that can be used for travel
within the area between the high school and the industrial area.
The County is trying to get a series of roads in place.

The purple alternative is not desirable because it requires
stopping and turning and thus, backs up traffic. The goal is to
keep traffic flowing.

The green alternative results in the road being 10 mph because
of the physics involved. They are not trying to build freeways or
super fast roads, but the "s curve" and intermediate tangents slow
things down.

The original alignment is the most desirable.

Muronaka says with the green alternative, it will require more
excavation work which potentially means more vibrations, although
it is tough to say if those vibrations will affect the cave.

Jacqui Hoover (Hoover) says that is what her concern is that
this additional work could cause more damage than crossing over
the cave as originally proposed.

Young asks if there are ways to eliminate this "s-curve";
perhaps by moving the intersection between Kamanu Street and
Kanalani?

Muronaka says if the green alternative is stretched out, the
result would be the intersection between Kanalani and Kamanu being
skewed, and that is also objectionable at the County and State
levels because a drivers line of sight is affected; it can be
studied. The main intersection is at Honokohau Street; that is an
existing road.

Kahakalau asks if moving the alignment makai has been looked
at.

Muronaka says it would be harder to come out of Honokohau
Street and make that sweeping curve down and then come around; the
intersection would become difficult.

What you see is a 60 foot easement, which provided for two
lanes; one in each direction.

Ron Dela Cruz (Dela Cruz) asks if the 60 foot easement is a
County standard.

Muronaka says it is.

Young says he has heard some discussion of special
reinforcement along this alignment.

Muronaka says they did look into what is called an "alternative
pavement section." Basically the pavement is reinforced with
concrete. Basically it is a bridge that is on the ground; it does
not go above. When you are driving you would not even notice it.
The asphalt and concrete go right over it. The bridge option would
be used where the proposal is to cross the cave.

One option was to focus travel towards the center of the
street, but in discussions with the County, it created problems.
The concept for this bridge option has been looked at extensively
and can be done.

Saffrey asks what type of vehicles will be using the road.

McClure says it will be a normal public road and will have a
wide variety of vehicle. The road is in an industrial area so
there may be big trucks.

Muronaka says the bridge will be designed to handle those heavy
loads.

Elarionoff asks what will prevent the cave from collapsing
after the bridge is put in.

Muronaka says the bridge is supported from the sides.

McClure says the support for the bridge will be way out on the
sides not near the cave. It is McClure's understanding that the
roof of the cave is about 20 feet thick.

Kuali'i asks if any excavations will be done above the
cave.

Muronaka they will have to excavate a little to build this
concrete section. The force of something being on the bridge is
distributed sideways not straight down.

Cynthia Nazara asks what the lifespan of a bridge like this is.
Have they built anything like this anywhere else?

Muronaka says he has never designed a bridge like this himself.
They will have a structural engineer come in and design the bridge
and determine the lifespan.

McClure says if the concrete is good, it will last as long as
the Roman aqueducts- concrete doesn't of itself deteriorate. It
has steel reinforcement inside and as long as there is enough
cover and the steel stays dry, it will last forever.

Nazara asks if they can determine the lifespan.

McClure says it will give 50 or a 100 years, but he can see it
lasting a lot longer than that. They want to give the HIBC the
confidence that it will last a long time. When they build bridges
they give them economic life; the bridges become obsolete not
because they are structurally weak, they are just too narrow.

Young asks where drainage from these streets will go.

Muronaka says there will be a drywell system. To avoid
impacting the caves, water can be piped away from the cave areas
to drywells. Once in the drywell system the water goes its natural
way. They have done it in the past where the water goes into a
catch basin and then is piped away to a second pipe basin which is
a drywell system.

Young would like to see the alternative routes explored; it may
be a combination of both of the identified alternatives.

Kuali'i says with the relatively low speed limit of 25 mph,
perhaps some of the concerns regarding the s-curve and stop can be
looked at. Then again, the way people drive today 25 mph sometimes
means 52 mph.

Hoover asks if the statutory 45 day clock for the HIBC to make
a decision has started.

Young says it has, but they will probably defer today.

Hoover says especially since the HIBC is asking for alternative
design options. Hoover asks Muronaka to try and find examples of
similar bridges that have been designed and constructed in the
past.

Young would like to know how the descendants feel about the
bridge concept.

Arthur Mahi (Mahi) says there needs to be buffers around all
the caves. Mahi is concerned about the road going over the cave-
we don't know how strong it is- the road might cave in. If the
road needs to go around that area, so be it. The 'iwi in this
place are his 'ohana. The 'iwi need to be left alone; preserved in
place. Any artifacts that have been taken need to be returned. The
mana does not belong to us. Someone needs to be watching to make
sure the 'iwi aren't hurt by the machines.

Out kupuna took care of this land, and now that responsibility
is with us, we need to take care of this land. Our children and
grandchildren are going to take care after us, so we need to show
them what is pono.

Mahi is glad to hear about the proposed cultural center- it is
a good idea. Don't just talk about, we have to do it. We can't
fight each other, we need to be pono. They bare not hear to make
hakaka.

Young asks Mahi if he has seen a copy of the Burial Treatment
Plan.

Mahi says he has, but doesn't like going over the cave. The
road should be re-routed. The plan is just on paper.

Hoover asks Mahi if he has signed up to be recognized as a
descendant.

Mahi says he does not like that term descendant. 'Ohana is
better.

Young says it looks like Mahi was contacted very early on in
the process; he has been in on the discussions.

Keolalani Hanoa says the last area we visited this morning at
the site visit is extraordinary. That is not just a burial area;
it is a place of ceremony. It is a place of ali'i. That kind of
stonework is not for the common people.

There has been massive ground disturbing activities on the
property related to quarry activity. There needs to be a buffer
around all the caves- there have been problems in the past with
caves collapsing. The buffer needs to be at least 100 feet;
especially around the site up on top site 18134.

Hanoa likes the idea of the cultural preservation area being
expanded. Hanoa is an educator, and preserve means to take care in
perpetuity for the education of our children. If we are going to
make it a preserve, our children should be able to utilize it.
There is no use in restoring it, reforesting it, if our kamali'i
are not going to use it. Hanoa suggests because of Honokohau's
rich history, that this preserve not just be an open area, but a
place our children can participate in and take the kuleana.

Hanoa has a problem with the road- she is not comfortable with
the distance of the road from our 'iwi kupuna in the cave. The
cave in its entirety, the whole cave, should have an entirety. The
'ana has a spiritual context to it. You don't just go in and out.
If you are a cultural practitioner, you understand that the entire
'ana encompasses the spirit, the 'uhane of those kupuna; the whole
thing becomes sacred. Hanoa would like to see more discussions
with the descendants. Hanoa is not sure that a bridge over a lava
tube is the best way to protect the 'iwi. The road needs to be
moved further away.

It starts with the poor planning and not aligning roads to
address the impact of people is always at the cost of Native
Hawaiians and out 'iwi kupuna- that is really getting old. Hanoa
is tired of the Hawaiians being the ones who have to
sacrifice.

End Tape 1 Side B

Begin Tape 2 Side A

Alfred Spinney (Spinney) wants to know the intent of the
charter for the Hawai'i Island Burial Council. Is there a purpose?
Spinney feels that these meetings a centered around development.
Development seems to take precedent.

Saffrey says she knows where Spinney is coming from, and feels
him, but development is happening. Her purpose of being on the
HIBC is to protect the 'iwi.

Spinney says the HIBC makes decisions that affect the people
who live on the 'aina.

Young says he thinks the HIBC will determine to preserve in
place all the 'iwi that have been identified on this property.
Young asks Spinney if there is something wrong with that decision.
The mission of the HIBC is to provide the forum for people to
share their views so the HIBC can make a decision. Young feels the
decision to preserve in place in this case is a good one.

Spinney says this is not an attack on an individual. This is an
entity we are dealing with. Spinney says it is good the people
have a voice, but we have seen a lot of desecration when it comes
to our 'iwi.

Spinney would like to have a process service document signed to
indicate the HIBC has received it. There is a repository of
everything that goes on today; it is filed.

Vince Kanemoto (Kanemoto) asks who it is filed with.

Spinney says the Supreme Tribunal Council.

Kanemoto asks if that is a State court.

Spinney says the State is de facto- this was created by the
people.

Kanemoto advises Young not to sign this document.

Spinney says he has a stamp that will indicate the agent
refused to sign.

Kanemoto says the minutes from this meeting will reflect
that.

Spinney says he is functioning as a process server for Ne'e
Papa Aupuni Hawai'i the original people of ka pae 'aina o
Hawai'i.

Curtis Tyler (Tyler) says he has read the proposed burial
treatment plan and has some comments. Tyler comes before the
Council today as an interested citizen and a potential cultural
descendant. Tyler has worked directly with Mr. Greenwell as
Greenwell has sought certain land use approvals. Tyler was a
County Councilman from Kona and was involved with in the approval
of the rezoning of this property.

Tyler wants to state for the record that he has known Greenwell
for 45 years. Greenwell approached Tyler about doing something on
this land in a way that was pono. Tyler suggested Greenwell get in
touch with Kepa Maly. Maly completed a two volume report on this
land. Tyler is happy to hear the proposal to preserve these 'iwi
in place. Tyler feels that in his experience many people do not
view the burials in the context of the ahupua'a. They are viewed
as segmented entities. Tyler urges the HIBC to continue the
precedent of treating the whole cave as the burial site. This has
been consistently done for well over a decade.

This plan shows the network of transportation, residential and
protocol throughout this entire ahupua'a; this is significant.
Tyler would like the HIBC to keep in mind that there are major
trails through this property. Tyler understands that the trails
are not under the HIBC's jurisdiction. If you look at this not
just for transportation by automobiles, but for pedestrian
transportation, this is very important from a cultural
perspective, especially mauka-makai trails.

Tyler feels there is a difference between preservation and
protection. Protection should enable present and future
generations to benefit from the action that everyone produces.
Tyler notes that the descendants support a 30 foot no build zone
from the edge of the established permanent buffer. Tyler agrees
with that; it is a very good concept and keeps with this idea of
context. Tyler also supports the repatriation of artifacts.

Tyler is concerned about the proximity of Kamanu Street to the
burial caves. Tyler considers the burial site to be the caves. The
preferred route that has been referred to seems to be from an
engineering perspective. Tyler hopes to temper that with a
preferred route from a cultural perspective.

Young asks Tyler if he has seen the burial treatment plan.

Tyler says he has.

Young says in particular on page 27 the 30 foot setback from
the permanent buffer zone. The buffer zone does not include the
entire ana; the building setback almost does. Young wonders if the
permanent buffer should include the entire cave and then have the
30 foot building setback start from there?

Tyler says he has testified before the HIBC as an interested
party and as a descendant. His recollection is that the where
there were burials in a cave, the cave was mapped and that from
the edge of the cave projected on the surface, the permanent
buffer went form there outward. Tyler believes that the temporary
construction buffer is a good idea as well; huge machinery will be
involved.

Ruby McDonald (McDonald) requests the HIBC go into closed
session because of the information she would just like to share
with the Council Members.

Kanemoto asks if this is because the information involves
discussion on the description and location of a burial site.

McDonald says yes, and other things as well as her kumu 'ohana
which is very private for her. It is site specific.

Young asks if McDonald is asking for a closed session to
exclude everyone. Including the other descendants?

McDonald says she is. The information does not apply to the
other descendants.

A motion is made to go into a closed session to discuss the
description and location related to a burial site.
(Nazara/Kuali'i)

Vote: All in Favor

Young says the HIBC is now asking that the room be cleared.
Only McDonald will remain to present her information to the
Council.

A motion is made to adjourn the closed session
(Kahakalau/Helbush)

Vote: All in Favor

Young says the open meeting is back in session, bit the council
is going to take a short recess, so we can all move our cars
outside of the NELHA compound. We need to move our cars by 4:45p
to the parking lot outside of the gate, and when the meeting is
pau, we can walk out, if not our cars will be locked inside.

A motion is made to recess the meeting (Helbush/Kahakalau)

Vote: All in Favor

End Tape 2 Side B

Begin Tape 3 Side A

Young calls the meeting back to order.

Young says the reason the Council went into closed session was
that information specific to the location and description of a
burial was presented.

Lindsey reads a staff memorandum recommending Ruby P.
Keana'aina McDonald be recognized as a cultural descendant for the
purpose of protecting unidentified ancestral Native Hawaiian
remains located on the parcels identified as TMK (3) 7-4-008:013,
(3) 7-4-008:030 and (3) 7-4-008:074.

A motion is made to accept the staff recommendation to
recognize Ruby P. Keana'aina-McDonald as a cultural descendant.
(Saffrey/Elarionoff)

Vote: all in Favor

Harp says the descendants haven't really discussed the buffers
for most of Site 18134 because it is outside of the project area-
the discussions have mainly been about the entrance area which is
within the project area.

A motion is made to defer making a determination on this matter
until the next HIBC meeting. (Elarionoff/Helbush)

Vote: All in Favor

Iwalani Arakaki (Arakaki) says she and her two nieces are also
descendants to Honokohau. She sent a letter to Lindsey, and it
hasn't made it to the Council so she and her family can get on the
list.

Lindsey says he will meet with them before next meeting to get
everything squared away so they can be recognized.

VII. CASE UPDATES

A. HAWAI'I ISLAND BURIAL COUNCIL'S INVOLVEMENT IN NAGPRA
PROCESS RELATIVE TO ITEMS CURRENTLY IN CONTROL OF HAWAI'I
VOLCANOES NATIONAL PARK

Information: Update on the HIBC's involvement as a claimant
under NAGPRA relative to items taken from a cave in Kawaihae,
Kohala known as the "Forbes Cave", and currently in the possession
and control of Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park. Report on August
27, 2005 claimants meeting.

Young says he requested this on the agenda because he attended
a meeting on August 27 representing the HIBC as a claimant for
funerary objects belong cared for by the National Park in Volcano.
There are 13 claimants. Lindsey has a letter from the prior HIBC
regarding this matter, and some of the background information.
Young asks Lindsey to distribute this for the Council's
review.

Saffrey asks if other Council members can request to see the
items.

Lindsey says they can.

Young says in the past, the Chair or Vice-Chair has represented
the whole Council. The reason for the meeting was that under
NAGPRA the Park has to meet and consult with the claimants. This
was probably the first of a couple of meetings that will occur.
The Park was trying to determine if the claimants are in consensus
as to the nature of these five objects. The objects are part of
the larger collection that was removed from the cave in 1905. The
letter from the HIBC dated May 31, 2005 states that the HIBC
determined that the items in the Parks possession are associated
funerary objects as defined by NAGPRA.

NAGPRA has several definitions that can be applied- there are
associated funerary objects, unassociated funerary objects, the
'iwi themselves, or objects of cultural patrimony. The Park is
looking for consensus from the claimants on what category these
objects fall under. The HIBC supported associated funerary
objects, and as such support repatriation.

Other claimants felt these were unassociated funerary objects,
and another said these were objects of cultural patrimony; both
supported repatriation.

There was no consensus among the claimants as to what the
disposition of the objects should be once they are repatriated,
but all supported repatriation.

Lindsey says the two letters the Council got today are just the
basic information. There is more that the Department will get to
the Council, especially those members who came in after may of
this year.

Young says there are other objects that are part of the overall
collection that was removed from the cave; they have been
separated. There were items in control of the Bishop Museum that
were returned to the cave. Since August 27th, a Judge's order has
directed those who returned these items to the cave to remove
them. Young thinks the Council might want to consider this as they
move forward with this.

Young feels the Council should think about whether the returned
items are under Federal jurisdiction or the HIBC's because they
have been returned to the cave- Young does not have the
answer.

Alan Murakami (Murakami) introduces himself to the Council. He
is with Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation (NHLC).

Duncan Ka'ohu Seto (Seto) introduces himself to the Council. He
is a member of Hui Malama I Na Kupuna O Hawai'i Nei.

Murakami says he represents Hui Malama.

Kanemoto asks if the reason the Federal court has assumed
jurisdiction in this matter. The case Murakami is involved in and
subject to the court order is because the area in which this cave
is located is on Federal Land.

Murakami says no, it is on Department of Hawaiian Homes Land,
but those lands are covered under NAGPRA as tribal lands.

They have a disagreement with the Federal Court. They feel the
Judge is totally wrong. As a result they are up at the Ninth
Circuit on an emergency basis. The Judge has ordered Hui Malama to
remove or cause the removal of these 83 moepu in 16 days, which
ends next Friday (September 23).

They feel this is a violation of Hui Malama's first amendment
rights, so it is a constitutional claim they are making to the
Ninth Circuit Court. Secondly they feel Judge Ezra does not have
jurisdiction over this case- NAGPRA was applied, repatriation was
requested and completed. It was over four years ago. No claimant
can now come forward timely as Na Lei Ali'i Kawananakoa has and
has received what they (NHLC) feel is an illegal recognition by
Bishop Museum, who has no power to recognize additional
claimants.

Kanemoto asks that the items were originally subject to the
NAGPRA process, but that process was completed and therefore the
Court has no jurisdiction.

Murakami says that is the disagreement. The Court believes the
repatriation was improperly done and has taken jurisdiction,
although the argument is that the time for that is long passed.
There is no claim under NAGPRA. NAGPRA can only be applied to
museums and federal agencies that hold these types of items.

It is against Hui Malama's first amendment rights and NHLC
feels it supersedes 6E which is the HIBC's kuleana. There is no
federal law in this area once repatriation is over, and in this
case, repatriation is over. For the Court to do so in the absence
of the other 11 title holders- claimants are called title holders
now that repatriation is complete, is wrong. It is basically the
Royal Academy along with Kawananakoa, who NHLC has no standing to
even sue, fighting it out with Hui Malama as a defendant- that is
just two of the owners. The HIBC has a right to be involved. The
other title holders need to be involved and that is what NHLC is
asking the Court to do.

The HIBC is a co-owner of these moepu and have not been joined
in this lawsuit, which Murakami feels is a fundamental violation
of due process rights for anybody including this Council.

Kanemoto says Murakami is talking about intervening.

Murakami says the Judges order is very broad. The direction of
the order is to take these items from the cultural setting that
the Hawaiians decided, and return it to the Bishop Museum who paid
for the items in the first place knowing they were stolen.
Murakami feels the most objectionable thing is that the HIBC's
property rights have been ignored if not violated by this Federal
Court. Here we have a Federal Judge ordering this return to the
Museum contrary to what Murakami feels NAGPRA ultimately intends,
over and without the State agency or entity that Murakami feels
ultimately has that kuleana.

Kanemoto asks if hypothetically speaking, the items are
returned to the Museum, then the NAGPRA process will continue.

Murakami says not in his mind, but that is what he thinks the
Judge feels. If this is allowed to be opened back up after 4
years, then there will always be the potential of people stepping
in to reopen the process.

Saffrey says she was at the NAGPRA in Washington DC and saw
what went on up there. Eddie Ayau did a chant, Saffey does not
speak Hawaiian, but the feeling she got was that Ayau was cursing
those against him. La'akea Suganuma then stood up and put back on
Ayau what he had said. Because it was so one-sided the panel
decided to hold the hearings in Hawai'i, so the people's voices
could be heard. The Panel asked Ayau if he knew what the word loan
means. He said yes. They asked what that means, that he had no
intention of returning the items knowing there were other
claimants.

We sit here today wanting to hear the voices of the
descendants, the people; the other claimants. Saffrey feels the
other 11 claimants did not have a voice because one group decided
to put the items back without consulting the others; that is where
Saffrey is hearing the wrong doing.

Murakami says he is not here to justify whether or not Hui
Malama's actions to that point were right or wrong. That vision of
what a loan is was manufactured concept by the Museum. There is no
loan under NAGPRA. IN NAGPRA, if a person who has a basis for
ownership of an object makes a request to a museum who at the same
time has no basis legally to assert title to that object, they
cannot refuse. They have to give it over. If that is so, the
Museums only duty is to turn that item over-

Saffrey says they did call it a loan.

Murakami says basically the Museum is the receiver of stolen
goods, who knew they were stolen, saying they will loan it back
and now is harping on the fact that it was a loan and should be
returned. Under NAGPRA those items should never be returned,
because the Museum has no basis for title- that is very clear.

Saffrey asks about the other claimants.

Murakami says it injects confusion about what NAGPRA is all
about. Murakami feels that it is Hui Malama's position that the
whole notion of NAGPRA is everyone get together and make a
decision. If the 13 claimants agree to take the moepu out of the
cave, Hui Malama will respect that.

Saffrey says Hui Malama hasn't tried to communicate to the
other claimants.

Murakami says the met for months back in 2001.

Saffrey asks why the other claimants have not been allowed to
see the items.

Murakami says back in 2001 there were originally only four
claimants. Nobody spoke up until after the moepu were returned.
After the press detailed the return, nine other claimants came
forward. If they were so interested, why didn't the other nine get
involved initially? The whole idea of NAGPRA is the idea of a
federal agency or museum returning what belonged to a native
people in the first place.

Saffrey asks who says that Hui Malama represents all the Native
people.

Murakami says anyone could have come forward.

Seto says you have to remember when the theft occurred in the
first place. They say David Forbes discovered the cave when they
looted the cave. Hui Malama put the items back and made pono what
was wrong. Their concern is for the kupuna who are dead and have
no voice.

Murakami reads portions of an affidavit La'akea Suganuma filed
yesterday. Basically what is says is that if anyone Hawaiian or
not comes forward and finds these moepu or 'iwi, then it was meant
to be found and is justified; that is his position. If you read
the OHA paper this month he says that. If that is the position
that this Council wants to sanction, then Murakami feels a lot of
things have to change on how 'iwi and moepu are put back in the
ground.

Young asks who the original four claimants were.

Murakami says Hui Malama, the HIBC, OHA and Hawaiian Homes, the
landowner. Only Hui Malama is being sued. Each of the four are on
record saying the items should be returned.

Young says there was great discussion among the Council at the
time.

Murakami believes there is a record of a formal motion.

Young says he has asked Lindsey to research that history. Young
recalls the Council always supporting no disturbance and no
removal.

Pele Hanoa says in the first place David Forbes should never
have gone in that cave and stolen those items. The items at the
National Park were given to them by the daughter of David Forbes.
Forbes should never have maha'oi in the first place.

Elarionoff says it is wrong to even call the cave "Forbes
Cave." He was kaaihue. Elarionoff's family is from that are,
Kawaihae Uka, they take care of a similar cave and the same thing
could happen. We should not honor Forbes. Call him kaaihue, the
thief.

Dela Cruz says that whole area has caves- that whole area
should be designated a preserve and that whole area closed off.
That place needs to be respected- in the old days canoes passing
by would tilt their sails in a sign of respect. Dela Cruz dreamed
of this last night; for some reason he knew this was coming. These
areas need to be protected- people are going to try and come and
rob these places.

Murakami says there are some, like Rubellite Johnson at UH who
believe that the Hawaiians in Kawaihae in 1905 would have believed
Forbes was led there by the ancestors, and therefore was ok.

Kuali'i asks how that cave in particular being protected
now.

Murakami says it is sealed with concrete.

Kuali'i says he has heard that it was opened or broken into and
then sealed again.

Murakami says perhaps Kuali'i is speaking of a different cave,
maybe Kanupa?

Kanupa is a different cave. When Hui Malama put these items
back with the 'iwi, "Forbes Cave" was empty at that point, and for
the first time in over 100 years it was restored and sealed.
Someone did break into Kanupa after Hui Malama attempted to return
those items and 'iwi.

Kuali'i wonders what Murakami wants the HIBC to do.

Murakami says he hopes he is talking to people who feel the own
a piece of the moepu.

Kuali'i says he has his own mana'o, and cannot speak for his
fellow Council members.

Murakami says they have received statements from Ray Soon, who
was the DHHL Director basically affirming that the Commission had
said nobody is to go in once these items have been returned. They
may have had a question about the loan and what should have
happened. They did say that once the items have been returned,
don't disturb them.

Murakami has documentation that OHA's vision was that the items
would go back into the cave, but hasn't got a specific response on
what is happening right now. Murakami assumes that since their
position is that the items should go back, that they shouldn't be
touched either.

Hui Malama is very clear on their position.

Murakami has statements from the Native Hawaiian Advisory
Council, one of the 13 owners who are saying they support
preservation.

Pu'uhonua O Waimanalo supports leaving them in place.

Murakami would like an affirmation from this Council that the
Council's position has not changed, that the moepu should not be
disturbed so they can inform the 9th Circuit of that- if not them,
certainly the District Court who NHLC plans to asks for a
reconsideration, because the Judge does not understand that what
he has ordered is impossible because of the structure of the cave,
the extent of the security etc., etc. Even Beyond violating Hui
Malama's first amendment rights, it is just physically impossible
and will subject anybody to the danger of life and limb to try and
do this. This cave is in danger of collapsing if they go in with
heavy equipment which will be necessary to disrupt the security
measures.

If the HIBC reaffirms their position, that will be very useful
because then NHLC can say hey the Suganumas and Johnsons of the
world are saying Hawaiians believe something different than what
the HIBC who is the primary guardian of 'iwi on moepu on this
Island believe.

Murakami thinks the HIBC has the right to join this case as a
co-owner of the moepu.

Saffrey says her concern is this concept of the loan- that was
the focus of the NAGPRA hearings. Ayau very clearly said he did
know what that paper was, and that he had no intention of
returning them, and that was asked many times and that is in the
Federal Register. Sitting on this Board now, Saffrey wants clarity
here if they are being asked to support, because she can't. What
laws apple here? Federal? Or State?

Seto says we should not get hung up on the word loan because
Bishop Museum regularly loans things out without expecting them
back, like on Moloka'I, same thing. They signed off on the loan.
Do you think they expect them back? That is how it works.

Saffrey says she sat in on two meetings and listened

Seto says don't get hung up on the loan.

Saffrey says she is. A piece of paper handed to a responsible
human being. If Ayau had said he did not know what loan meant then
fine, but to deliberately say he did know what he signed, and he
had no intention of returning them when he signed it.

Murakami says looking at it from the Museum's viewpoint, they
don't own the property. There is nothing to transfer in terms of
title. The only thing they know of in the Museum world is this
word loan, and in the Museum world loan is used very
differently.

Saffrey asks what NAGPRA is about.

Murakami says NAGPRA does not even use loan. NAGPRA basically
says the transfer has to happen if you ask for it.

Saffrey says it was under the Museums jurisdiction to have this
paper which was a loan to this one organization because there were
other claimants.

Murakami says the Museum created that.

Saffrey says that is her position.

Murakami says he can accept that. The Museum introduced this
confusion and this unfortunate term that confounds the problem
unnecessarily because

End Tape 3 Side A

Begin Side B

the claimants and you can decide what to do with the
moepu, and you can deal with that there. The fact that the Museum
transferred possession to Hui Malama was the important thing that
had to happen under the law, and it was not with the expectation
they would get it back under the law, they did not think they
would get it back, and can't ask.

Saffrey said they did ask for them back.

Murakami says he should say they can't legally ask for them
back.

Saffrey said the other claimants also asked.

Murakami says they may try, but under the legal rights afforded
by NAGPRA that time has come and gone. They could have done that
back then. The 13 claimants unanimously asked for repatriation.
Once that was completed, title was passed to those 13 title
holders. Now it is up them. The Museum has nothing to say from
then on.

Elarionoff says the more people that go up there, the more
possibility of them finding the other caves.

Pele Hanoa says as a Hawaiian she knows her culture, she lives
in these Islands, she does not care how the western people think.
Loan is not a Hawaiian word.

Murakami says it is not even a NAGPRA word.

Young says when these objects were still in the possession of
the Museum, when the HIBC made its claim, the sentiment of the
Council was that they should be repatriated and then returned to
the cave. When it (repatriation) actually happened, there was a
lot of discussion among the Council if these items should be
shared with the public because these are unique and special,
extraordinary pieces no doubt, that speaks to itself who was in
the cave.

The items were returned without the Council knowing, but the
sentiment of the Council when we found out was "ok it is done."
Young can attest to that because he sat in on many meetings. What
Young cannot attest to is if a motion was passed or if any
decisions were made on the record. The only decision they made was
to be a claimant.

Young does not know how two or three wrongs make a right, and
that is what is perplexing to him. One thing he can say is that he
does not want a Federal Judge telling the HIBC. The HIBC is here
to keep it there. How the items were returned right or wrong
cannot be reversed; taking the items out in the first place, we
can't reverse the wrongs.

There is a numerous chronology of wrongs here. The HIBC can
take a position or no position and stay neutral, but Young feels
taking no position is wrong; that is his personal opinion. The AG
had to leave to catch his flight, but Young feels the Council can
make a motion and vote on it.

The way the items went back caused a lot of debate among the
Council and even divisiveness at this level, because the HIBC
stands for a principle and it seemed someone undermined that
principle, but in the end the items went back to the cave.

Young can focus on the Judges decision. Should the items be
removed? Young says no, but it is up to the Council. The Council
can make a motion and write a letter or do nothing.

Murakami asks that the Council write a letter, and to ask for
intervention if that is what the Council wants to do; something in
writing that NHLC can hopefully use from the Council on what the
sentiment of this Council is in regard to the disposition of the
moepu in the cave and whether or not it is proper to take them out
without the permission of the Council- this is a previously
identified associated burial remains, and under 6E HRS the HIBC
gets to say what happens.

Kuali'i says regardless of how we feel about what was done and
who did what, basically the vote would be either for or against
the removal of these items.

Young would like to see the Council make a motion to that
effect; that as a claimant they were not informed regarding the
Judges decision to remove the items from the cave. The HIBC feels
we should be in that process. The items are in the cave and it is
NHLC's position that it is outside of NAGPRA's jurisdiction. All
that does is reaffirm what the HIBC is all about.

Dela Cruz says the decision was made to repatriate.

Young says there is background history the Council needs to
have.

Lindsey says he has not found any specific motions from the
HIBC on what should happen after repatriation.

Murakami says repatriation happened and is done. The question
now is possession and placement of the objects. If the HIBC
believes they should go back to their cultural setting, then that
is what the Council should vote on.

Young says they never reached that level of decision because
the items went to Hui Malama and went back into the cave without
any action by the HIBC. Young can say the sentiment was that the
items should go back in the cave, but that might not be on the
record.

Elarionoff says today those items are there- let's keep them
there.

Young says a motion should be made and if passed, staff can
draft the letter, and then circulated among the Council members to
approve it.

Kuali'i would like to make a motion that those moepu stay in
that cave where they are now. A letter should be drafted and sent
to Judge Ezra.

Murakami says he cannot tell the Council to send a letter to
Judge Ezra as a party to the litigation; they can only communicate
with him in the courtroom.

Pele Hanoa says send a letter to him so he knows where the
Council stands. This is our 'aina.

Saffrey asks don't we need to make a motion before we write a
letter.

Young says he is trying to get the motion in the letter that
way all we have to do is draft the motion that has been approved;
that way the letter will be drafted and signed.

Saffrey says without the AG here she is uncomfortable.

A motion is made that the moepu that were returned to the
"Forbes Cave" in Kawaihae, South Kohala by Hui Malama remain in
place undisturbed and not be removed

(Kuali'i/Elarionoff)

Helbush says he is concerned about the reference to Hui Malama
because if the question of the loan comes up, but the Council
should just state our view and not make it look like we are
supporting one group or another.

Elarionoff says the point of the motion is that from this day
on, those items stay there.

Saffrey says because it is an order by the Judge, Saffrey is
concerned and does not support this. Her position is that she has
sat in on the NAGPRA meetings and learned a lot- she cannot
support this. All the claimants should be given the opportunity to
decide.

Helbush believes those items should have stayed there and not
touched- forget all the rest. If the Judge orders it, fine that is
the law. All the Council is doing is stating our position.

Kuali'i amends his motion to the following

A motion is made that the moepu that were returned to the
"Forbes Cave" in Kawaihae, South Kohala remain in place
undisturbed and not be removed

(Kuali'i/Elarionoff)

Role Call Vote:

Ronald Dela Cruz- Aye. He wishes those items stay there, but
knows some of those items are not directly burial items Those
items that are directly burial items should be returned, but the
ones that are not directly related to the burials and were placed
there after the kapu time were put there because the keeper of
that cave wanted those items protected in there. The question is
whether they belong there or not, however they are there now.

Leningrad Elarionoff- Aye.

Pele Hanoa- Aye.

Roy Helbush- Aye.

Kaleo Kuali'i- Aye.

Cynthia Nazara- Aye.

Dutchie Saffrey- No.

Charles Young- Aye.

7 ayes and one Nay the motion carries.

Young says the issue is not over; there are still items in the
National Park that are part of the overall collection of items
removed from the cave. This is one step. The next time there is a
claimant meeting, the Council members should attend. There is
agreement on repatriation, but the final disposition of the items
has not been decided.

Dela Cruz says the cave is sealed.

Young says that is the discussion that is yet to come.

Saffrey asks how the items could be put back if the cave is
sealed.

Young does not know. We will have to discuss that.

Lindsey asks how the Council wants the motion that was just
passed relayed to any appropriate parties.

Young says a letter should be drafted and reviewed by the
AG.

Elarionoff says why should it be reviewed? This is our
decision.

Young says he will coordinate with Lindsey tomorrow on how to
communicate this motion.

Hanalei Fergerstrom (Fergerstrom) says he came here today from
Kalapana only to offer support if it is deemed necessary on the
motion that the Council just made to keep the 'iwi and moepu in
place. Fergerstrom understands that there may be disagreements,
but does not want to see the Federal Government having the last
say; these are cultural matters. It is good to see that the HIBC's
mindset is that the cave will not be disturbed again; that is what
we are trying to do. Fergerstrom is here to support the HIBC's
motion that was just made.

Information: Update on SHPD staff's site visit to Okoe and
on-going Burial Registrations

Lindsey says they did get a chance to meet with Darrel DeSilva
and his mom down in Okoe, and can honestly say he is honored and
privileged to have been able to go there with them. Lindsey has
prepared a report on that site visit, but because of the
information Darrel shared, it has been sent to him for his
approval. We are moving forward with the Burial registration
process for the sites DeSilva showed staff there. The sites are on
State land, so there is imminent danger from development, but
DeSilva does have concerns about people who go makai to the
coastline and may not know the significance of the coastline.
There is no doubt that there are major features there that have
survived because of their isolation.